When good people enable bad cultures: Why behavioural drift happens in teams

Monday 13th Oct 2025

Image showing woman at desk with two people whispering in the background

Even in “values-based” workplaces, good people can unintentionally enable bad behaviour. Leaders often wonder how teams that talk about respect and inclusion still tolerate incivility, cliques or subtle exclusion. The answer lies in behavioural drift in teams - the slow shift in what’s considered acceptable when small acts of silence, avoidance or inaction go unchecked.

Recent psychology research shows how silence and conformity allow toxicity to grow, even among well-intentioned teams. Over time, these small moments of avoidance create conditions where values erode and negative behaviour becomes normalised.

Below, we unpack what behavioural drift looks like and the psychological processes that drive it.

1. Organisational Silence: When politeness masks avoidance

One of the strongest predictors of behavioural drift is organisational silence - when employees choose not to voice concerns, even when they notice problems.

A 2025 longitudinal study by Weiss & Zacher found that when employees felt unable to speak up about workplace issues, their identification with the organisation dropped, and they later became more likely to behave uncivilly themselves (Journal of Business Ethics). In other words, silence doesn’t just protect the problem, it can turn once-engaged employees into new sources of incivility.

Research suggests most people stay silent not because they agree with bad behaviour, but because they fear backlash, futility or being labelled as difficult. In teams that pride themselves on being “nice” or “values-driven”, the pressure to maintain harmony can make honesty feel risky. The result is passive complicity - the appearance of calm while underlying issues multiply.

2. The 'bystander effect': Everyone sees it, no-one acts

When toxic behaviour happens in teams, there are usually multiple witnesses but little action. This is the bystander effect - a well-known psychological phenomenon where responsibility diffuses across the group.

A 2025 review by Bastiaensen and colleagues (Behavioral Sciences) found that perceived responsibility was the strongest factor shaping whether coworkers intervened in mistreatment. When people think it’s someone else’s role to act, the target, the manager, HR, they stay silent.

Fear compounds this inertia. Employees often worry about retaliation or social exclusion. Some even rationalise their inaction by blaming the victim (“they can handle it” or “they’re oversensitive”). These micro-justifications make silence feel justified, but they also reinforce a culture of inaction.

Over time, bystanders stop seeing mistreatment as “their business” at all. This subtle withdrawal is a key mechanism in behavioural drift - it allows toxic micro-behaviours to persist, teaching the group that intervention is optional.

3. Groupthink: When ‘harmony’ suppresses honesty

Values-based teams often see themselves as cohesive, respectful, and aligned. But that same cohesion can make it harder to confront poor behaviour. This is groupthink - when the desire for harmony overrides honest discussion.

In high-trust teams, people self-censor to avoid being the one who “ruins the vibe”. They convince themselves that if something were truly wrong, others would speak up - a form of pluralistic ignorance. The result is false harmony: everyone privately disagrees but publicly pretends things are fine.

Research on workplace bullying (Green & Luong, 2023, Nursing Open) shows that excessive group cohesion can suppress ethical dissent. Employees conform to group norms, even when those norms protect problematic behaviour. In healthcare and other close-knit teams, this can mean tolerating exclusionary behaviour because “that’s just how they are”.

The irony is sharp: the stronger a team’s identity, the easier it becomes for members to rationalise silence in the name of unity.

4. Shifting social norms: How incivility spreads

Behavioural drift in teams doesn’t happen overnight.

It starts with small breaches - sarcasm in a meeting, a dismissive tone or a subtle act of exclusion. When those moments go unchallenged, they quietly redefine what’s normal.

A 2021 longitudinal study of Swedish engineers (Holm et al., Occupational Health Science) found that employees who witnessed incivility were more likely to behave uncivilly later themselves. Simply seeing others get away with rudeness was enough to lower their own behavioural standards.

This “incivility contagion” effect means that one person’s bad day can reset a team’s expectations. Over time, polite silence from others signals tolerance. What was once an isolated lapse becomes a shared norm.

A 2022 study in BMC Psychology found that workplace incivility, even when low-level, increases the risk of more serious aggression if it’s not addressed. The researchers warned that unchecked incivility erodes respect norms, creating a self-reinforcing cycle of disrespect and disengagement.

In practice, this means that even good people begin to copy what they see. Teams don’t consciously decide to lower their standards, it happens through repeated exposure and lack of correction.

5. Why behavioural drift happens in values-based teams

Values-based teams are not immune - they’re often the most vulnerable.

Here’s why:

Moral self-image: Team members believe “we’re the good ones”, so they overlook or excuse bad behaviour that doesn’t fit that identity.
Conflict avoidance: Harmony is prioritised over honesty. Feedback feels uncomfortable, so it’s delayed or diluted.
Ambiguous accountability: When everyone is “a leader” in principle, no one feels responsible in practice.
Emotional fatigue: Repeated exposure to low-level incivility drains energy, making confrontation feel like extra work.

Over time, these small psychological shifts make silence habitual. Once avoidance becomes normal, even well-meaning people participate in maintaining a culture that contradicts their stated values.

6. How leaders can stop behavioural drift

The good news is that behavioural drift is reversible ....

.... but only if leaders act early and consistently.

The following strategies are backed by recent organisational psychology research:

Replace silence with voice

Create psychologically safe spaces for employees to raise issues without fear.
Publicly acknowledge feedback when people speak up, even if you can’t act on everything.
Avoid labelling direct communication as “negative” or “not constructive” - this shuts people down.

Train for active bystanding

Teach teams how to intervene safely when they witness incivility.
Encourage short, simple interventions (“That comment felt unfair” or “Let’s bring others in”).
Recognise and reward people who address problems early rather than ignore them.

Model boundary-setting

Leaders set the tone. If you challenge disrespectful behaviour calmly and consistently, others will follow.
Don’t excuse poor behaviour from high performers or senior staff - that’s one of the strongest signals of what’s really valued.

Audit team norms regularly

Check for signs of drift: increased sarcasm, gossip, exclusion or emotional fatigue.
Invite the team to reflect: “What behaviours have we started accepting that don’t align with our values?”
Reaffirm what “respect” and “inclusion” look like in specific, behavioural terms.

Address early, not after escalation

Tackle small issues privately before they grow.
Offer coaching and clarity, not just reprimands.
Make civility and accountability part of performance conversations.

7. The bottom line

Behavioural drift in teams is rarely about bad people - it’s about good people adjusting to bad norms. Silence, avoidance and false harmony feel like small compromises, but they accumulate. The longer they go unchallenged, the harder it becomes to restore the team’s original values.

Leaders who act early can stop the slide. Building a culture that values respectful challenge over quiet compliance protects not just morale, but integrity.

When “good people” stay silent, bad cultures thrive. But when they choose to speak, model and uphold values in small, consistent ways, behavioural drift reverses and the team’s values start to mean something again.

References

Weiss, M. & Zacher, H. (2025). Still Waters Run Deep: How Employee Silence Affects Instigated Workplace Incivility Over Time. Journal of Business Ethics.

Holm, K., Torkelson, E., & Bäckström, M. (2021). Longitudinal Outcomes of Witnessed Workplace Incivility: A Three-Wave Study. Occupational Health Science.

Bastiaensen, C.V.M., Baillien, E., & Brebels, L. (2025). Hear, See, Do (Nothing)? An Integrative Framework of Co-Workers’ Reactions to Interpersonal Workplace Mistreatment. Behavioral Sciences.

Holm, K., et al. (2022). Workplace Incivility as a Risk Factor for Workplace Bullying and Well-Being. BMC Psychology.

Green, C. & Luong, A.D. (2023). Territorialism and Groupthink in Workplace Bullying. Nursing Open.